« The Robot Express | Main | Voter's Cheat Sheet Update »
October 21, 2004
Candidate Cheat Sheet
For all of my conservative friends:
I-872: New Primary Election System
yes (but good arguments on both sides)
Background:
If you voted in the primary election in September, you may remember that you had to choose a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian ballot? It probably pissed you off…since you probably like jumping around between parties. I-872 would scrap this system and allow you to vote for people of any party in the September primary…and the top-two vote-getters (regardless of party) would advance to the general election in November. Advantage: you get to choose among any party in the primary. Disadvantage: in some cases, two members of the same party will be on the ballot in November. Another impact is that it will reduce the influence of special interest groups.
I-884: Sales tax increase for education.
Vote yes. good arguments on both sides.
This raises the sales tax by a penny and dedicates the money to education. Will raise $1 billion per year. 50% for K-12 education 40% for higher education and 10% for early childhood learning programs. All desperately need funding, and the Legislature doesn’t (and wont) have the balls to step up to the plate. We all benefit from a quality education system.
Downside: the sales tax is already high in Washington…and this would bring it up to 10% in some parts of King County. Sales tax disproportionately hits low-income people. This is a serious decision about whether we want to pay more in taxes for our education system.
I-892: Expanded non-tribal gambling.
My vote: no.
Allows existing non-tribal gambling establishments (like Wizards….but also places that have pull-tabs like bars and bowling alleys) to have a limited number of psudo-slot machines (like they have at the Muckleshoot). The money raised by taxing the expanded gambling will be used to lower your property tax. (about $30 per $100,000 of value in your house, so it’s a pretty small reduction).
If you like expanded gambling, vote yes. If you don’t, vote no.
One concern to consider: I-892 takes away the ability of cities like Burien to make their own decisions about the types of gambling to allow. Right now, Burien could choose to allow card-rooms, but not full-on casino’s like Wizards. If I-892 passes, Burien will either have to allow the slots OR no gambling at all. All or nothing. So, local control is reduced. Not a huge deal, but something to think about.
R-55: Public Charter Schools.
My vote: no
This is a public vote on a bill that was passed by the legislature. This charter school proposal is different than the ones in the past.
- limited to 5 per year
- part of the public school system (i.e. open to all students--a lottery system will be used if more students are interested)
- cannot be religious
- teachers can join unions
- does not take money out of the public school system, because they ARE public schools. (note that the opposition always says that they will take money away from “existing” public schools.) If your kid moves from Gregory Heights Elementary to Seahurst Elementary, the state dollars follow the student. Same thing here. If you decided to move your kid from Gregory Heights to a new public charter school, the state dollars will follow. The levy dollars will NOT follow.)
I figure that these few schools might provide some opportunities for kids who aren’t succeeding in the current school environment. It is just another option for parents.
Quite frankly, I think this issue is much ado about nothing. It’s not going to solve our education challenges, nor is it going to do any serious harm. The neutral explanatory statement in the voters pamphlet walks through the details, and is worth reading carefully if you have mixed-feelings.
I-297: Hanford cleanup
Vote yes. Good little environmental issue—broadly supported.
President: John Kerry (of course)
US Senate: Patty Murray. She may not impress some of you, but her views on issues (the environment, civil rights, reproductive choice, children’s issues, etc.) are much more mainstream than her opponent. She also is getting some seniority and can bring home some serious pork$$ for WA.
Governor: Christine Gregoire. Love her or hate her, I promise you she will be better than Dino Rossi. He is ultra-conservative (for example, he believes in teaching creationism in the schools) and he lacks depth. He is a slick salesman, well-spoken, charming, but not much underneath.
Lt. Governor: The Libertarian candidate, Jocelyn Langlois, has pledged to abolish the office of Lt. Governor. Not a bad idea.
Secretary of State: Laura Ruderman. She’s young (30s). She’s a woman.
State Treasurer: Mike Murphy. He’s the current State Treasurer. a stuffy old blah guy, but I think he’s the only remotely-qualified candidate. Even you Republicans might want to vote for him.
State Auditor: Brian Sonntag. (ditto)
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Kreidler (ditto)
Commissioner of Public Lands: Mike Cooper. CRITICAL RACE. He’s definitely the environmental choice!
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Teresa (Tery) Bergeson. She's extremely bright, committed, and with a realistic and solid perspective of where we are going in this state in terms of our public schools.
Supreme Court Position 1: Mary Kay Becker – CRITICAL RACE (her opponent is dangerous for the court and our state)
Supreme Court Position 6: Terry Sebring. His opponent is a sitting judge who has sometimes has some appealing libertarian views, but who unfortunately has extreme religious-right values.
King County Superior Court Position 23: Andrea Darvas – CRITICAL RACE. She was rated “outstanding” by the non-partisan Municipal League. She’s great!!
Superior Court Position 42: Both are qualified—can’t go wrong. My vote is for Catherine Moore.
King County Charter Amendment 1A & 1B: They sound appealing, but I’d vote NO. If you want accountable and accessible government, you shouldn’t have elected officials representing so many constituents. 1B is the best choice over 1A.
King County Advisory Measures: these are weird because they are non-binding. Basically, the King County Council is just asking you your opinion. Do you want to fund certain transportation projects (you can read the list)? If so, how should we pay for it? I’d take the time to read the measures and give it some thought. I voted yes on the first, and then chose “excise tax on the value of motor vehicles," although “local gas tax” is a good option too.
Posted by jana at October 21, 2004 9:46 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.randomlyhumming.com/mt-tb.cgi/892
Comments
Good post :)
I have to disagree with you on the first two, though. I-872 will kill most 3rd party candidates, which I think is a shame. Personally, I don't mind putting up with a bit more structure in my primary ballot to allow 3rd parties to survive.
I felt the same way you did about I-884 until I read this comment from Jake Manalan. I suggest you do the same, it might change your mind.
Posted by: joe at October 21, 2004 8:30 PM
That comment is full of shit. It's claiming we should legalize additional gambling to fund education (and somehow also cut property taxes with the same money we are, ahem, funding education with?). Please. We already have gambling in the form of the lottery to fund education. What I-884 would actually do (contrary to what Jake claims) is fund a dedicated trust fund for education with a bunch of specific spending on specific programs which aren't today funded at all. What Jake describes happens all the time - King County did it with the parks, Seattle with the libraries - but it is not what is happening with I-884.
If you liberals don't vote for 1-884 you are fools. It will be the single best thing to happen to education funding in the state in a century and it funds it by taxing the sort of consumption that you probably decry when you see it all around. Is it regressive? Sure - its an excise tax. But you aren't voting for a new tax code here - voting against it simply keeps consumption taxes lower and keeps money away from education programs.
If you want a state income tax you can support politicians and initiatives that are trying to create a state income tax. But voting against education funding through the existing tax scheme in the guise of avoiding regressive taxes is a cop-out. Your principled position won't make the tax system better or the schools better off. Voting for it will create more seats in universities in the state, increase teacher pay, preschool positions and lots of other things that disproportionately help poor people. That it is funded by the sales tax is a problem, but to my mind, a smaller one than the lack of educational and childcare opportunities.
Posted by: Josh Petersen at October 27, 2004 3:34 AM